Letters: Dec. 11, 2006

(5 of 6)

JEFFREY R. WAGGONER, M.D. Denver

Without Apology

Columnist Michael Kinsley argued that the neoconservative policy hawks should apologize for getting the U.S. into the Iraq war [Nov. 20]. I, however, have no intention of apologizing for supporting the war. While it has not gone well by any measure, the need for it was and still is the same. Saddam Hussein was a violent despot who engaged in genocide. He was unwilling to cooperate with U.N. resolutions that support long-term peace in the region. He previously waged an unprovoked war. If Saddam were in power today, how would he respond to the development of high-grade nuclear materials by Iran? How did diplomacy affect Nazi Germany, North Korea, Iraq and Iran? Do not blame American conservatives for the failures in Iran and North Korea. Blame the world. It will be 50 or 100 years before we know the real effect of our efforts in the Middle East.

MIKE POWERS Hiram, Ga.

I was bemused by Michael Kinsley's wish for an apology from Washington's neocons. I feel it's enough that the country has spoken in the midterm elections and demanded a change in dialogue and, I hope, direction from our political élite in Washington. To expect the neocons to grovel is a bit much.

RUSS SMITH Grosse Pointe Woods, Mich.

The Enduring Argument

The debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins was gripping [Nov. 13]. Regarding the idea of a supernatural cause of the universe, Dawkins said, "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." What qualifies Dawkins to decide these matters? For someone who gets so exercised about the impossibility of God's existence, Dawkins seems to have a fairly clear conception of what God must be like.

RYAN DUECK Vancouver, B.C.

One has to laugh at the God-vs.-science debate conducted between Dawkins and Collins, because ironically, they both agree. There is a God, and it is science. In an age of ever intensifying absolutisms from the worlds of science, religion, politics and culture, perhaps the time has come to examine what might be learned from each of these areas of inquiry. Perhaps it's time to consider how each position we hold adds value to our lives and not how to convince others of the foolishness of people who hold positions other than our own.

(RABBI) BRAD HIRSCHFIELD VICE PRESIDENT CLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP New York City

Global Vision

Your selection of the best inventions of 2006 [Nov. 13] included the Science on a Sphere display and correctly credited the device as having been developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The article called NASA and Honeywell the "inventor," however, apparently referring to the 16-min. film Footprints, the latest visual display developed for this platform. We feel this is confusing. NOAA is the inventor and holder of the patent for Science on a Sphere. The technology is a significant and dramatic way to represent the world and aspects of the global environment. NOAA scientist Alexander MacDonald conceived of Science on a Sphere and developed it into a new kind of visual experience that is making its way into science museums around the world.